Skip to main content

Trespass to goods

 Trespass to Goods, 

Trespass to Goods consist of direct physical interference with the goods which in the possession of the plaintiff without any lawful jurisdiction. It include many things like chasing animal to provoke them run away from the owners possession, like throwing the stone on neighbors car, shooting birds, kill the dog by giving them a poisoned.  Trespass to goods is actionable per se that directly means it is without the proof of any damages. 

The Trespass to the land include many wrong like it include a wrong against possession that mean any person whose possession of goods is directly interfered with can bring action. A person may be in the direct possession of the goods or may have constructive possession. A person having can sue even without any proof of his title to the goods. A trespasser cannot take the defence of jus terti, that is, he cannot be allowed to say that some third party and not the possessor of it had a good title to the goods. 

It includes the direct interference that means physical interference without any lawful justification is a trespass. The wrong can be committed in various way like intentionally or negligently or even by direct mistake. 

It also include without lawful justification, when the interference is without any lawful justification, an action for trespass lies.        

Trespass to Goods includes mainly three elements 1st: Lack of consent, the interference should be not being in knowledge of a committing trespass to the person and without the consent of the person. Any use exceeding the consent authorized by the consent should it because harm gives rise to cause of action. 

Intentionality is also an essential element for the trespass to goods, the interference must intentional.

Detinue; when the defendant is wrongfully detaining the someone’s else goods without any lawful jurisdiction in a possession with her and not deliver the same good then plaintiff can recover the same by brining an action for Detinue. In India, Detinue as such has not been mentioned as a wrong but similar action for recovery of special relief act 1963. The section 7 and 8 of the special relief act enable the recovery of specific movable property. Section 7 enable a person entitled to the possession of the property to recover it in a manner provide by the code of civil producer 1908 however in cases provided in section 8 the plaintiff entitled to the immediate possession of the of the goods may claim a speedier relief and recover the specific movable property from the person who is in possession or control of the thing. 

  1. When the thing claimed is held by the defendant as the agent or trustee for the plaintiff; 

  2. When compensation in money would not afford the plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed.

  3. When it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage caused by its own loss. 

  4. When the possession of the thing claimed has been wrongfully transferred from the plaintiff. 

   
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more